166 F. Supp. 3d 1103
S.D. Cal.2015Background
- U.S. Navy servicemembers (Plaintiffs) sued Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) alleging radiation injuries after deployment near Fukushima Daiichi following the March 11, 2011 earthquake/tsunami. Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC) asserting negligence, strict liability for ultrahazardous activity, nuisance, failure to warn, IIED, and related claims.
- The district court previously dismissed Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint under the political-question doctrine (FAC), but allowed leave to amend; the SAC dropped fraud-based theories and emphasized TEPCO’s negligent design/operation/maintenance of the plant.
- TEPCO moved to dismiss the SAC for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (political question), failure to state claims, and alternatively under forum non conveniens and international comity; it later moved for reconsideration and/or interlocutory appeal certification under 28 U.S.C. §1292(b).
- The court reconsidered in light of Mujica v. AirScan (9th Cir. 2014) (refining comity analysis) and additional briefing, but largely maintained prior rulings: dismissed certain claims, denied dismissal on political-question, forum non conveniens, and comity grounds, and certified interlocutory appeal on controlling legal issues.
- Rulings: design-defect strict liability and IIED claims dismissed with prejudice; DOE placeholder plaintiffs dismissed; remaining tort and ultrahazardous-activity claims survived; court denied dismissal on political-question, firefighter’s rule, forum non conveniens, and international comity grounds; certified issues for interlocutory appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Political-question / Subject-matter jurisdiction | SAC removed fraud-based reliance on TEPCO misstatements; claims are ordinary negligence against a private actor and do not require review of military or executive decisions | Adjudication requires resolving whether U.S. Navy deployment or government communications were superseding causes, implicating discretionary military/foreign-relations judgments (nonjusticiable) | Court: SAC no longer requires judicial scrutiny of executive/military decisions; Baker factors not implicated; denial of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
| Proximate causation / superseding cause (Navy) | TEPCO’s negligence was a factual and proximate cause of harms; Navy actions were foreseeable consequences of plant failure | Navy’s independent decision to deploy (and any alleged Navy negligence) was a superseding intervening cause, cutting off TEPCO’s liability | Court: Navy’s presence/action was foreseeable and not an extraordinary superseding cause; proximate causation adequately pled; denial of dismissal on this ground |
| Firefighter’s rule (rescuers’ bar) | Plaintiffs were acting as professional rescuers and risks inherent in responding to the disaster bar recovery | Radiation from an ultrahazardous private activity is not a risk inherent in humanitarian assistance; firefighter’s rule should not be extended to this context | Court: Declined to extend firefighter’s rule to foreign military humanitarian responders; rule did not bar SAC; denial of dismissal |
| Forum non conveniens / International comity | Plaintiffs insist U.S. forum appropriate (many plaintiffs U.S. residents, some with severe illness) | Japan is adequate alternative forum; most witnesses/evidence in Japan; foreign policy instruments (CSCND) favor adjudication in country of incident | Court: Japan is an adequate forum but balancing of private/public factors favors retaining U.S. forum; comity doctrine likewise did not warrant dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (political-question doctrine framework)
- Mujica v. AirScan, Inc., 771 F.3d 580 (9th Cir. 2014) (clarified international comity factors and five-factor test for country interests)
- Ungaro-Benages v. Dresdner Bank AG, 379 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2004) (three-part comity test referenced)
- Corrie v. Caterpillar, Inc., 503 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007) (foreign-relations / political-question limits on tort suits implicating U.S. support to foreign actors)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard)
- USAir, Inc. v. U.S. Dept. of Navy, 14 F.3d 1410 (9th Cir. 1994) (proximate causation and foreseeability concepts)
- Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652 (9th Cir. 2007) (government decision as potential superseding cause)